The highlighted part has nothing to do with Buddha explanation. First of all, Buddha refuted the annihilationist because they believed in a self that gets destroyed while he said there was never a self to begin with. Nanananda quote about the fire has nothing to do with annihilationist and is about the question of weather an arahant exists after death, or does not exist etc. - question that Buddha rejected because it was a wrong question. It showed a lack of understanding on the questioneer part. Like asking what color did the helichopter from the Little Red Riding Hood children story had. Asking such a question is wrong since there is no helichopter in the story.
The simile with the fire is given as an example to show only the 5 aggregates exist and not a self observing them. And, when the aggegates disappear there is nothing left. Like a fire that gets extinguished. There never was a self to begin with, there was just a fire (the aggregates) that cease without reminder. Aggregates were never self, there was never a self to begin with.
As a sidelight to the depth of this argument it may be mentioned
that the Pāli word upādāna used in such contexts has the sense of
both ‘fuel’ as well as ‘grasping’, and in fact, fuel is something that
the fire grasps for its burning. Upādānapaccayā bhavo, “dependent
on grasping is existence”. These are two very important links in the
doctrine of dependent arising, patticca samuppāda.
- This has nothing to do with the sutta. He is trying to make a case for fuel of the fire been the existentialist idea of “assumption”. The idea that things don’t really exist but only appear to exist because of the internal process of assuming them to be real. We know that the fuel of the 5 aggregates is craving not assumption otherwise there would not be any need for monks.
So we have here a mistranslation to make a case for his views, we have solipsism witch is listed as a wrong view - but we have no attempt at a logical argument so that I could point out a logical mistake. This is a simple claim not a justification of a claim based on logic.
The eternalists, overcome by the craving for existence, thought
that there is some permanent essence in existence as a reality. But
what had the Buddha to say about existence? He said that what is
true for the fire is true for existence as well. That is to say that existence
is dependent on grasping. So long as there is a grasping, there
is an existence. As we saw above, the firewood is called upādāna be-
cause it catches fire. The fire catches hold of the wood, and the wood
catches hold of the fire. And so we call it firewood. This is a case of
a relation of this to that, idappaccayatā. Now it is the same with
what is called ‘existence’, which is not an absolute reality.
Lol. Buddha did not say existence is dependent on grasping. And he did not say the fire runs because of grasping. He said it runs based on clinging and ignorance. Two things not just one. What grasping refers to in buddhism is conceit. Conceit and clinging go hand in had. They are both underlying tendencies that have to be removed. But they are not one and the same. For example there might be the simple craving to take a drug for an addict. In a particular moment this craving appear. It has little to do with the conceit underlying tendency and more to do with the “taking delight” underlying tendency/hidrance. There exist 5 hidrances (witch are underlying tendencies too) and the overall underlying tendency of conceit. The underlying tendency for conceit actually is dependent on craving and lack of wisdom. Therefore it is removed through increasing wisdom (by doing the 6 contemplations) and through removing craving overall by reducing craving. This is why some might be pulled by wisdom or pulled by tranquility. And the path ends with removing all craving and all conceit.
Nanananda view also leads to the problem of “thinking your way to enlightenment” that has appeared in some mahayanist sects too because of solipsist thinking.
Removal of craving is done through seclusion and through cultivating the 7 factors of enlightenment. They are the things that make the hidrances disappear. When this is perfected, the person will achieve jhana, as shown in MN 39 and other such suttas.
Removal of conceit is done mainly through the 6 contemplations. But since conceit is dependent on craving and then it reinforces craving, both need to be cut. That is why they are always developed simultaniously. This is why Buddha said one might be pulled by wisdom and another by tranqulity. The 6 contemplations are to be done after achieving stream entry:
When Dīghāvu declares that he already possesses these qualities, the Buddha tells him that since he is established in the four factors of stream-entry, he should “strive further to develop six qualities that partake of true knowledge” (cha vijjābhāgiyā dhammā): “You should dwell contemplating the impermanence of all formations, perceiving suffering in what is impermanent, perceiving non-self in what is suffering, perceiving abandonment, perceiving dispassion, perceiving cessation.”[36] Dīghāvu assures the Blessed One that he is already practising these contemplations, and the Master leaves
This is also why jhana alone does not lead to enlightenment. There needs to be jhana and also the contemplation of how even this is constructed while in jhana in order to destroy all conceit. This is why it is called “liberated through wisdom”.
First step of the path is intelectualy understanding that there is no self and therefore become “acomplished in view”. This is done through contemplating higher teachings found in SN chapter 2,3,4. After the person undertands there really is no self, there will not be any wrong view left. There will be only the underlying tendencies left. Like a machine still working in a way because of inertia. The underlying tendency of conceit and the 5 hidrances will still he present. Their elimination will lead to no volitional formations for further existence to be produced by the machine. And when the machine will die, the aggregates will break apart and cease without reminder. A machine that runs on craving internally produced and recycled will auto-destroy due to cutting it’s own fuel.
I am curious what role does seclusion and reduction of craving have to play in Nanananda view since his thinking, like all others before him, leads to the “thinking your way to enlightenment” or “cleansing your view to enlightenment” by stopping to assume things are real, by destroying this assumption process. So what need is there for monks in this view ? This also leads to the conclusion that every liberal arts collage professor is enlightened. The more hardline the solipsist, the more enlightened.
)